THE CHARGE OF MURDER AT WREXHAM. Joseph Hughe*, 36, labourer, was arraigned on a charge of having, on the 10th of January, 1865, felon- iously killed and murdered one William Kendrick. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. Melntyre prosecuted, and Mr. Swetenham de. fended. The learned counsel for the prosecution said Gentle- men of the jury,â€”The prisoner Joseph Hughes stands charged before you to-day with the wilful murder of William Keudrick. I think it will pretty clearly ap- pear from the evidence that the prisoner at the bar caused the death of Wm. Kendrick. Mr. McIntyre then briefly stated the case in accordance with the evi- dence hereinafter inserted. In conclusion, he said- It may be said this case .mly amounts to manslaughter; upon that point you will be directed by my lord; and having heard the depositions of the deceased, it will be for you to say whether the prisoner is guilty or not guilty of murder. George Price was the first witness sworn. He de- posed-I am a baker living at Wrexham. I knew Wm. Kendrick who is now dead. lie was 21 years of age. I was standing with him in Bridge-street in Wrexham on the night of the 10th of January, near Mr. Parry's shop, exactly half-past 10 within a minute. Prisoner came up close to us. He spoke to me and asked where he could get lodgings. I told him in Brook-street. He repliecl-lie knew that as well as I did. I saidâ€”"you have had your answer, why don't you go on." He was very saucy to me then. Kendrick then saidâ€”when you get a civil answer why don't you go on. He turned round to Kendrick and asked who he was. Ken- drick said he knew who the prisoner was, and if he did not go on he should make him. Prisoner then lifted up his arm aud begau squaring. Kendrick lifted up his in self-defence. They got into the middle of the street about 10 yards from where I stood. Prisoner gave him a blow on the left side of the head. Prisoner ran away: Kendrick called out to me saying he was stabbed. I took him to the King's Head. Prisoner was taken into custody that night and brought to the King's Head. Cross-examined by Mr. Swetenhamâ€”Prisoner lifted his hand to strike me first. 1 got out of the way. It was moon-light. I did not see anything in prisoner's hand when he lifted it to strike me. He spoke to me first. I perceived he was a little in drink. The lodg- ings at 13rouk-side are common lodgings. Prisoner seemed angry because I directed him there. He was very saucy to me about two minutes before Kendrick spoke to him. The blow he aimed at Kendrick struck him. Kendrick then aimed a blow at the prisoner. I cannot say whether the blow struck the prisoner. I will not undertake to say that no more blows took place between the two. I never saw the prisoner before that night. He-examined by Mr. McIntyre-I did not see more than one blow given by the prisoner. I saw many at- tempts by both parties. By the JUDGUâ€” Kendrick was a small man. I had known Kendrick for ninc months. He was not a par- ticularly quarrelsome man. I did Dltt know of him get- ting iuto any trouble for fighting. Thomas Pugh statedâ€”I am a police-constable sta- tioned at Wrexham. I apprehended prisoner on the 10th of January at the Swan Inn, Penybryn, about 300 or 400 yards from Bridge-street. I made a charge of stabbing Wm. Kendrick. He aaid he knew nothing about it. 1 took him to the King's Head to Wm. Ken- drick, who said the prisoner was the man who stabbed him. I searched the prisoner and found a knife in his left trousers pocket. I produce the knife, the point of which is bent. There was blood on the blade, on the prisoner's hands, and on his trousers. I examined the trousers next morning and there were signs of the blood having been washed away, but it was still there. Cross-examinedâ€”I never saw prisoner before that night. Dr. Edward Daviesâ€”I was called to Wm. Kendrick at the King's Head, on the] Oth of January last. I found him bleeding from an incised wound on the left 1 side of the head near the ear. It was about 2 inches long. I probed it, and it was J in. in depth. I visited deceased on three occasions, and saw him at the surgery once. My brother principally attended him. De- ceased died on the 11th of February. Made a post mortem examination and found that the wound had not healed, and in passing up a probe I found the wound had communicated to the brain. It passed through the articulation of the jaw and through the membrane, to the brain itself. Ou removing the skull I found the brain and its membranes very mueh congested, and on the base there was a large effusion of matter resulting from inflammation of the brain-that causing compres- sion of the brain which was the immediate cause of death. Such a knife as this would inflict the wound. Cross-examinedâ€”Wm. Kendrick lived about a ca- lendar month and a day after the wound was inflicted. I believe he walked to the surgery about 14 days after the injury. When I first saw him I did not suppose the brain was injured. If I was of opinion that the brain had been injured perhaps I should have directed him (but not necessarily) to abstain from intoxicating liquors. Deceased's father died of consumption. There was no positive evidence that deceased had a scrofulous tendency. Re-examined--The wound was the sole cause of death. Dr. John Davies (brother of last witness)â€”I attended deceased on the 11th of January, and continued to do so till his death. Inflammation set in on the eighth day. He got a little better after that, but inflamma- tion again returned. He died on the II th of February last. Cross-examinedâ€”He did not go out as usual to my knowledge. I did not prescribe any diet-for him. I at first told him to abstain from liquor, but exhaustion set in after that. It would have been better for him to remain in the house after the inj uiy. P.C. Pugu recalled-Was present at the proceedings before the magistrates. I heard the depositions of the deceased and prisoner had an opportunity of cross-exa- mining him. The depositions of Wm. Kendrick were read and put in evidence. His testimony almost tallied with George Price's statement. He said-" All of a sudden, and without any provocation, the prisoner gave me a blow. I made a blow at him. I do not know whether I struck him. He struck me on the temple, and I called out that I was stabbed." This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr. Swetenham proceeded amidst deep silence to ad- dress the jury'on behalf of the prisoner. He said-It is with feelings of no ordinary anxiety that I rise to ad- dress vou on behalf of this unfortunate man, who is charged with this most serious crime. But my anxiety does not arise on account of any fault in the manner in which the case has been laid before you on behalf of the prosecution. On the contrary, my learned friend has laid it before you with that clearness and modera- tion that I feel perfectly sure the prisoner will have a fair trial. My anxiety is not caused either by any fear that the case will not obtain due consideration at your hands, beeause I feel assured that the prisoner has the advantage of being tried by a body of as intellectual gentlemen as could be found in the county of Denbigh. I listened to hear from what part of the county the jury was summoned, and I noticed that several were called from the immediate neighbourhood where the prisoner comes from. I did not object to the jury coming from that direction; in fact I was glad of it. But some of you haviug come from that neighbourhood, perhaps it may not be out of place for me to beg of you to dismiss from your minds everything that you have heard or said yourselves relating to this case, so as to come to the consideration of it with perfectly unbiassed minds. I trust you will be guided solely by the evi- dence you have heard to-day, subject to the directions you will hear from my lord on the law of the matter. Gentlemen, my anxiety arises from a feeling that in the mode I have conducted the examination, I may per- haps have failed to illustrate some facts which will re- duce this serious crime to the lesser one of manslaughter. When a person is charged with unlawfully killing an- other, he may be indicted for two offences-the minor one is manslaughter, and the greater one is murder Manslaughter may be defined to be the killing of a per- son by another without any indication of malice in his mind at the time. It is said that there is no crime known to the law which so much differs in degree as the crime of manslaughter. One kind of manslaughter may be of a very lenient descriptionâ€”almost justifiable -for which even a day's imprisonment is sufficient. On the other hand, manslaughter may be of a most serious nature, verging closely on the crime of murder, and for that the law will inflict a very long term of penal servi- tude. It is frequently impossible to distinguish or separate murder from manslaughter; and of all cases I have heard of, this case demands most anxious consi-' deration. The crime of murder is detinelt to be- having of malice aforethought killed and destroyelt ft person." Of malice aforethought"â€”gentlemen, that malice may be direct malice, or malice in law. I said the crime of manslaughter differed in degrees, and was considered to differ more than any other crime; but I ask you whether the revelations of modern-history, in our times, do not shew that murder may differ in degrees almost if not quite as much as the crime of manslaughter. The public have been shocked by the unprecedented accounts of murder in the newspapers, committed under circumstances of the deepest atrocity. For manslaughter the punishment is rewarded by a day's imprisonment or a long period of penal servitude; but for murder, the only punishment is death Then, gentlemen, I apprehend you will approach this case with feelings of the greatest care, to see whether it is in any way possible, upon the evidence laid before you, to impute to the prisoner at the bar malice in fact or malice in law. We can very easily understand what is meant by malice in fact when we read of a man and his wife in London inviting a man to their house- they pretend to be kind to him afterwards the man is missing, but ultimately his skeleton is found in the same house, in the kitchen, under a table, and those who had taken his life away were eating and drinking as if there was no skeleton in the house to rise up some day in judgment against then.! That was a most diabolical murder, for which the punishment of death was most justly given. Later on did we hear of a person having affected to cherish fond friendship towards another, but in order to gain his money he gives him poisonâ€”he faithfully attends to him in his sickness, and watches his dying agonies. The poor man dies, and is found to have been poisoned by his friend There was malice aforethought" there, and an ordinary death on the scaffold was almost too good a punishment. Later again was all the world terrified by a gentleman being thrown out of a railway carriage and murdered for the sake of a paltry watch. Surely there was malice aforethought" in that case, and the rich punishment deserved was death But gentlemen, are not these very different cases to the case now under inquiry at this court. It is said that if, upon a sudden quarrel be- tween two persons, one draws his sword and stabs the other dead, he may be found guilty of murderâ€”why, because the fight was begun under circumstances of undue advantages. But is there one tittle of evi- dence to bring the prisoner at the bar within that rule of law ? I hope, gentlemen, you will be able to bring him under another rule of law, viz., if the par- ties attack each other on equal terms, and one draws a knife in a fit of passion to stab the other fatally, it is a case of manslaughter. The evidence in this case will, I think, justify me asking you to disbelieve that this man had a knife in his hand before the fight beganâ€”he sought no undue advantage over the deceased, neither did he at the outset shew any disposition to have his blood. If the evidence warrants you to say so, he is oaly guilty of manslaughter. Kow, just let us briefly allude to the evidence. The learned Counsel read Geo. Price's evidence, and commented upon it as follows:- The prisoner was irritated by being directed to a low class of lodging houses, and he was further irritated by the words, you have got your answer, why don't you go on," and if you don't go on, 1 will make you." Price and prisoner were saucing each other for two mi- nutes. Consider that,â€”a drunken man at half-past ten at night being sauced for two minutes it was sufficient time to cause. hot blood to boil. The prisoner, it is said, lifted his hand to hit Price, and lie had no knife in it then. That is an all-important statement. It shews the prisoner had no knife in his hand when he first at- tacked the deceased. The learned Counsel then read the depositions of the deceased, and the evidence of the policeman. The testimony of the deceased, he remind- ed the jury, was weakened materially, inasmuch as he could not be cross-examined. The prisoner, it was stated had an opportunity of cross-examining, but a man of his class of life was incapable of doing so. It was said, also, that prisoner ran away after striking the fatal blow. If he had a mind of killing Kendrick, would he not have ran out of the country, or endeavour to hide himself. He did not do that; on the contrary, lie was found the same night within 300 or 400 yards of the spot where the fight took place Did that shew a guilty conscience ? It was evidence in favour of the pri- soner. There was a fight, and he thought it was pretty clear that it wur a fair tight in the beginning, It is not a case ( continued the learned counsel) on which much can be said on ruined hopes or blighted affections, it is a mere common vulgar drunken row,â€”I have hardly a topic to enlist your sympathies on behalf of the prisoner. lie is poor and friendless; the only friends he has now to protect him are you to you he appeals to judge his case fairly and impartially to you he appeals whether he had provocationâ€”whether he did not attempt to fight fairly, and was driven in a fit of passion to do that which he is now very sorry for. It is a very long time since the county of Denbigh has been shocked by a scene of public execution, and I trust that you will by your verdict to day, save it now from such a scene. I do not wish to deter you from doing your duty; I should blush and dishonour my profession, were I to say one word to get any other verdict except that which the law and justice requires you to give. You have a duty to perform to your country, to youiselves, to the pri- soner, and to God I ask you again, although at the fear of repetition,â€”Is there one particle of evidence to lead you to suppose that this man originally, in the en- counter, sought the blood of the deceased ? Was it not in the moment of irritation he drew the knife. The ques- tion of character may be of considerable importance, and 1 I shall call witnesses to prove that the prisoner is not a sullen and malicious mau,â€”on the contrary, that he is a passionate manâ€”easily aroused, and in a moment af- terwards very friendly. "I lie prisoner, unquestionably, has done a most wrong and wicked act, and for that he must suffer; but the question is, whether he shall suffer a long period of penal servitude, or whether he shall ex- patiate his life on the scaffold. I implore yon to give such a verdict as shall satisfy your own consciences, and as justice to this poor unfortunate man demands you to give, I trust you will be able to lay your heads on your pillows to-night with a testimony in your bosoms that you shall have done your duty to God by saying that the prisoner is guilty only of the lesser crime of manslaughter. Wm. Morrisâ€”I am half-brother to the prisoner. I have known him all my life. He is naturally a man of quiet disposition. His LORDSHIP declined to admit the question-Is his temper easily aroused ? Another witness to character was called, but did not answer to his name. His LOHDSHIP, in summing up, said it would be quite superfluous for him to say more than one word on the importance of this enquiry. On the one hand the dis- positbn of the prisoner's life, and on the other hand, the safety of society was left to the judgement of the jury. The public safety depended in a great measuro on whether or not they discharged their duty in cases of this nature. Before he would call their attention to the evidence he begged to state what he thought the law to be on the case. In the cases referred to by the learned counsel for the defence there had been long conceived and cherished malicious design to put to death. How- ever, it was not necessary, to constitute the crime of wilful murder, that there should be an intention to kill. To illustrate the point by an illustration which would be plain to them, he supposed a man was attacked by another on the highway, beaten and stabbed fatally with intention only to seriously injure him, nobody could doubt that that was a case of wilful murder. Intention to do grievous bodily harm was sufficient to bring the case within the meaning of the indictment upon which Joseph Hughes was charged. In many cases of murder the malice afore-thought" was of long standing, but it was not essential that it should be of long standing to render the act of killing a crime of murder. It was immaterial in point of law whether the "malice afore- thought" was of long or short standing. If, however, the malice in the present case did not exist before the encounter, and was caused in hot blood, by a serious blow on the part of the deceased himself, then that was not such as would sustain a charge of murder, but of manslaughter. That, he apprehended, to be the law upon the question. Therefore, the point for the jury to decide wasâ€”was the fatal blow inflictod after a serious blow by the deceased, and in hot blood-because it was not every kind of blow by the deceased that would extenuate the crime of murder and bring it down to manslaughterâ€”it must be a serious blow. His lord- ship then minutely read his notes of the evidence, oc- casionally making comments as he proceeded. He ob- served that the first intimation of violence, or rather force, was made by the deceased, but the original ag- gressor evidently was the prisoner. Having repeated the question for the decision of the jury, he said in a solemn toneâ€”and I am afraid I must add, that if you cannot ex- press an opinion as to the whether a serious blow was inflicted by the deceased, you must find a verdict of wilful murder. The closing sentence of his lordship's observations ci eated great sensation in court. The jury retired,â€”and after an absence of sixteen minutes they returned with a verdict ofâ€”MAN SLAUGHTER. His LORDSHIP said-Joseph Hughes-the jury have taken a merciful view of your case, and I am not at all sure that they have taken a right view of it. At all events, I shall assume that by the sentence I am about to pronounce upon you. If your crime be not murder, it is a very aggravated case of manslaughter. You must have taken that knife to inflict a deadly injury upon a fellow-creature under the influence of passionate feel- ings, and it is a warning to all what may be done under that momentary madness which men call auger. You are sentenced to ten year's peual servitude. NISI PRIUS. The nisi prius business was resumed after the trial of I Joseph Hughes. ACTION FOR A; ASSIULT. Elizabeth Davies v. Robert Joncs.-This was an action to recover damages for an assault. Mr. Melntyre, in- structed by Mr. James, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Morgan Lloyd and Mr. Swetenham, instructed by Mr. Griffith, for defendant. Mr. Melntyre stated that the plaintiff was aewidow residing at Tynyffynon, near Llauddoget, and defendant was a surgeon practising in Llanrwst. Defendant was sued for unlawfully entering plaintiff's house and therein assault her. Defendant pleaded not guilty to both countsâ€”alleging in answer to the first that the dwelling- house was not the plaintiff's. Elizabeth Davies said.-I am the plaintiff in this action. I am a widow, 67 years of age. I have two sons living with me. On the night of the 1st of July, after I had gone to bed, about half past 12, I heard my son John shouting for me. I went down stairs, and found him on the floor and Mr. Jones, defendant, on the top of him-beating and thrashing him. I lifted my son up, and he ran for his life. Mr. Jones's father was also in the house. My son Edward came in, and defendant attacked him. Defendant also abused and kicked me. He injured my thigh, and I have suffered greatly from it Examined by Mr. Morgan Lloydâ€”I walked to Den- bigh from Llanrwst, and came from Denbigh here by train. Did not take hold of Mr. Jones. Did not scratch his face nor tear his linen. John Davies-I am plaintiff's son. Have been in the service of defendant's father, and afterwards in the jervice ot Mr. Hugties, aetenaann parcuer. un tne night in question defendant came to my mother's house. He attacked me, and I ran for my life. Left him with my mother. Heard her fall against the stairs. She afterwards complained to me of being beaten by defend- ant. Margaret Thomas stated that plaintiff had shewn her leg to her the day after the quarrel. It was then dis- coloured. Dr. Davies, of Llanrwst, testified having seen plaintiff's leg, three or four days after the 1st of July. It was very much discoloured, and presented the appearance of having been kicked. Examined by Mr. Morgan Lloydâ€”Did not prescribe for her. Did not see any signs of chronic tumour on her leg. Did not examine her very closely. Re-examinedâ€”I believed them to be recent in- juries. Mr. Morgan Lloyd opened the defence, and observed that he should be able to lay before the court such evi- dence as would shew that the action was brought for the purpose of getting costs and damages, and not because the old woman had any real grievance against the de- fendant. Defendant's lather and plaintiff lived. wibiiiii 60 yards to each other. Plaintiff's sons went to defend- ant's father's house at three o'clock one morning and knocked him up, making use of abusive language to- warcli him. Dr. Jones was told of this misbehaviour, and he went to remonstrate with plaintiff's sous, which gave rise to the quarrel. Dr. Jouesacied in self-defence, but did not touch the old woman. She had not re- ceived mueh injury, as tho jury might conclude from the fact that she had walked from Llanrwst to Denbigh, a distance of twenty miles, and he would adduce evi- dence to prove that she had worked in the iurrest last year. Mr. William Evan Hughes, surgeon, described the in- juries as having partially disabled the plaintiff. Tney were not of a very serious nature. Edward Davies, plaintiff's son, corroborate his rno ther's version of tue fray' and admitted 1'uai he was the tenant of T/nylfynon. The count for trespass was (hen struck out of the de- claration. Dr. Jones, examined by Mr. Swetenham, saidâ€”I am the defendant in this action. Remember Ihe night of the 1st of July, when I had occasion to go to my father's house. In returning, I saw the plaintitf standing in her night dress at her door. I asked her what she thought of the conduct of her sons in going to my father's house in the middle of the night to attack him. She replied that she could not stop them. Presently the son Ed- ward marie his appearance In the road. Did not see John at all. When Edward saw me, he turned to go to the house. I caught hold of him by the shoulder. He struggled and took hold of the frame of the door. The old woman and Edward pulled me into the house. Edward immediately attacked me, and assaulted me as much as lie possibly could. The old woman also scratched my face with one hand, and held me by the throat with the other. (Laughter.) She tore my shirt and waistcoat. I called to my father to take her away from me. He did so. I swear that I did not touch her. Examined by Mr. Melntyreâ€”Edward bad hold of the door; the old woman was pulling him in, and [ was pulling him out. That is what I call being pulled into the house. (Laughter.) I struggled with Edward, but I do not believe that I .struck him. John Jones (defendant's father) corroborated his son's evidence. Margaret Thomas deposedâ€”I have known plaintiff for more than 14 years.. Remember seeing her on the 2nd of July. She shewed her leg to mo. It was black and blue. I observed that I had seen it so three years ago. She had Deen accustomed to shew her leg at Capel Garmon for the purpose of getting alms. It was affect- ed with rheumatism. I saw her in the evening of the 2nd July carrying coal on her shoulders. Faamined-Canuot say whether the discolouration had been caused recently. I can only say that her leg was black and blue three years ago. Arthur Davies, farmer, stated that plaintiff worked for him at the last harvest. Cross-examinedâ€”It was the corn harvest, in Septem- ber. I do not think she was with me more than a week. Mr. Morgan Lloyd commented upon the evidence, and remarked that this was not the first time for the plain- tiff to try to obtain money by means of the rheumatic leg, for she had been at Capel Garmon exhibiting it three years ago with a vietv of receiving alms. Air. McIntyre made an eloquent appeal to the jury on behalf of the plaintiff, who, he (said, had been wan- tonly treated by Dr. Jones. The bruises were on her leg; that fact could not be denied. How came they there ? It was absurd to suppose that they were of three years' standing. His LORDSHIP summed up, apparently in favour of plaintiff. The jury had to decide which of the parties told the truth. If Dr. Jones's story was true he was the most forbearing man in Wales, for he would have the court to believe that he was the victim of all, and nobody's assailant. If the j ury should find a verdict for the plaintiff, he directed them not to allow ignominous damages, but such a moderate sum as would satisfy the justice of the case which, he was of opinion, might have been heard at an ihferior court. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages, 92. ACTION FOR TRESPASS AND DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER. Edward Thomas v. Rev. John Jones and P. S. Hum- phreys, Llangwm.â€”A special jury case. Mr. Morgan Lloyd and Mr. Coxon, instructed by Mr. Hughes, Corwen, appeared for plaintiff; Mr. Melntyre, instructed by Mr. Parry Jones, Denbigh, for the Kev. J. Jones; Mr. Swetenham and Mr. Talbot Smith, in- structed by Mr. Louis, Ruthin, for P.S. Humphreys. Mr. Coxon having read the pleadings, Mr. Morgan Lloyd stated that the plaintiff was a boot maker, carrying on busiuesi at Llangwm; the defen- dant, the Rev. J. Jones, was the rector of Llangwm, and a magistrate in that district; and defendant, Hum- phreys, was a police-sergeant in the same place. In the second count the jury had heard a charge of having ma- liciously, and without reasonable and probable cause issued and caused to be issued a warrant to search the plaintiff's house, and he was sorry to say that as regards both defendants, but particularly the .defendant Mr. Jones, there were grounds for supposing that the war- rant was not issued in the regular and legal course of business. Au eumity had been in the mind of Mr. .Jones against the plaintiff, and he had shewn it before this event. The plaintiff, who was the son of the parish clerk, used to go invariably to church, but on one acca- sion he was induced by curiosity to go and listen to a great luminary in one of the dissenting chapels. In consequence of that Mr. Jones called him to account, and asked him why he went to hear "those sectarians." Mr. Jones was in the habit of calling his communicants togetherâ€”so far imitating the Dissenters-and on the next Sunday evening after the plaintiff had been at the chapel, he called a special meeting of the members, at which he read one or two canons against heretics, applied no doubt to the plaintiff, who was present. The following day (Monday morning) Mr. Jones saw the plaintiff, and said he would rather see him come out of a public-house drunk, or out of a brothel, than out of a Dissenting chapel. Plain- tiff afterwards left the church and joined a Dissenting body, and ever since Mr. Jones had persecuted him. He (the learned counsel) was happy to say that this bigotry was a solitary instance, or one at all events of a small minority, amongst the clergy of the Established Church. It was essential in this country that the Dis- senters and the Church of England should go together in harmony and good-willâ€”the interest of one was the interest of the other. He had been obliged to bring this forward, because the jury would be unable without it to understand the case. Sometime after, the plaintiff was employed to watch game on the Garthmeilio estate, but owing to Mr. Jones having charged him with being a poacher he was discharged from his situation. In the month of June last, a farmer's house called Ystrad Bach, belonging to Mr. David Owen, was bioken into, and three pairs of boots and a piece of butter were stolen therefrom. Defendant Humphreys heard of the robbery, and made enquiries about it of Mr. Owen. Although Mr. Owen did not tell him he suspected the plaintiff (who had always borne a good character), he laid an information against him before the Rev. Mr. Jones, and upon that information a warrant was issued to search his house. On his way to the house, Humphreys informed a person that he was going to search Edward Thomas' house on suspicion of having committed a robbery at Ystrad Back, before he knew what would be the result. Plaintiff offered no resistance, but said, "You shall search my house if you search other houses, as well, so as not to throw a slur on my charac- ter." Humphreys insisted upon searching it, without even producing his warrant, and he searched no other house. None of the burglarious articles were found in plaintiff's bouse, and after the search was over Hum- phreys said, "I thought I should find nothing." Plaintiff asked Humphreys who told him to search his house, but he would not tell. Plaintiff, knowing where his enemy was, added "the people at the the Rectory." The origin of the suspicion was no doubt in the mind of Mr. Jones. It was a great injury to a man to have his house searched under suspicion of having committed robbery, and however false the suspicion was, his enemies would always upbraid him about it. The plaintiff, he strongly submitted, was entitled to a verdict in this action. Edwd. Thomas was then examined at great length by Counsel on each side, and his evidence did not differ in substance from the statement of Mr. Morgan Lloyd. [The Court adjourned at five o'clock till next day.] On Tuesday, Plaintiffs wife corroborated her hus- band's evidence regarding the search made by Hum- phreys. David Owen, of Ystrad Bach, was then examined. He stated that three pairs of shoes, and three pieces of but- ter were stolen out of his bakehouse in the month of June last. Saw Humphreys before plaintiff's house was searched, but did not say that he suspected the plain- tiff had stolen the goods. Said that the lock of the bakehouse had been on a pinfold at one time, and no- body knew how to open it except plaintiff's family. Plaintiffs grandfather had made a false key to open it when on the pinfold, to release his donkeys. The defence placed great reliance on David Owen's statement respecting the plaintiff's family being the only family who could open the lock. This, in fact, was the ground of suspicion upon which Humphreys acted; and Humphreys, at a further stage of the case, swore that David Owen had positively told him he suspected Ed- ward Thomas. Tlios Jones, farmer, stated that Humphreys had told him that he was going to search plaintiffs house, and warned him not to tell anybody. Other witnesses were examined to shew that plaintiff's business was injured in consequence of his house being searched. Mr. Melntyre proceeded to address the jury for Mr. Jones. There was no evidence to prove that he had taken action in the matter further than signing the warrant upon information laid before him on oath by Humphreys, and he was perfectly justified in doing so. A discussion now followed by the learned counsel on both sides on the points of law connected with the case, all of which by the ruling of the Judge were reserved for decision at the Court of Exchequer. His LOHDSHIP thereupon informed the jury that the questions regarding the reasonable and probable cause of suspicion," and the legality of the course adopted in issuing and executing the warrant were not questions for their deliberation. Mr. Melntyre made an able defence on behalf of Mr. Jones, denouncing the idea of imputing malice to him against plaintiff,haviug always befriended his family, and his father was still employed by him as parish clerk. The allegation respecting the retirement of plaintiff from the church (more than three years ago) was so paltry that he would not even put Mr. Jones in the witness-box to contradict it. William Pritt, Esq., foreman of the jury, here said that the jury had made up their minds that there was no malice proved on the part of Mr. Jones. Mr. Swetenhafn called police sergeant Humphreys to prove that he had searched the house by the leave and license of plaintiff." lIe had offered to search another house, but plaintiff agreed that he should not do so, on condition that the search of his house should be kept private. M r. M. Lloyd replied to the case for the defence, and maintained that malice on the part of Mr. Jones had been clearly proved, and as he had not thought proper to contradict plaintiff's evidence, it was true that he did say I should rather see you come out of a public house drunk or out of brothel, than out of a Sectarian place of worship." The JrmoE in summing up remarked that it was very much to be regretted that the Rev. Mr. Jones should have made use of the expressions iuputed to him, and he (his lordship) was quite sure that upon calm considera- tion he would be the first to regret it. It behoved him and all others to speak respectfully of all Christian deno- minations for they all belonged to the same Holy Faith, which had done more for the reformation of the "world than any other means. All Christian sects had. he be- lieved, the same light from heaven, shining as it were through glasses of different colours. The only points for their consideration were:â€”Did Humphreys search the house uy permission of plaintiff? 2.- Was there malic" on the part of Mr. Jones in issuing the warrant ? 3.â€”Supposingthe points of law were decidedin plaintiff's favour, what amount of damages would they allow ? Answerâ€”1. Yea. 2. No. 3. One farthing. The JUDGE said he hoped the verdict of the jury would be an end to the casj.
pisedtaMOU-s. =- A woman died suddenly the other night in a at Walmall. '['he Secretary for War has approved of the voluw review at Brighton on Easter Monday. The woman who last week threw her infant up fire of a public house in London, was on Saturday tenced to 3 months' imprisonment. 'e, Signor Ginglini h.M now arrived in town, but i3 ï¿¼ in a very abnormal state, and is under the care, we ,t., lieve of Dr. Forbt's Witislow.-Orcheitr(t. ,e An oil well in Jackson, Michigan, has been sunk 20fir feet. It is intended to sink it to the depth of 3000 Â¡O% Thee deepest oil well at present is 2600 feet. Ãªet, An endowment of ZIOOO a-year is to be conferrft] the Duchess de Morny. A bill to that effect will et be very shortly laid before the Corps Legislatif. 'i,( The Paris P?-esse &,tys- The Prince lruperi I France has received for the celebration cf his b- I the grand cordon of the Danish Urder of the Elep J with a host of foreign decorations." An unusually violent easter)y gale has been b)?? in London and the vicinity since Saturday night. ;.? reported that no fewer than 60 coaMaden barg? ?"? sunk in the Thames. It is stated that a sergeant in the North Down R' (militia regiment) has been arrested for attempt!? ? induce some of his comrades?o enrol themselve8 ia ,:) Fenian Brotherhood. Mr. William Fenton, manager and buyer to Mei. Dakin and Co., tea merchants, St. Paul's-churchv^' London, hanged himself on Saturday, whilst sUffoc." from temporary insanity. "J On Sunday last Vfajor Charles Moore, governor the Military Knights of Windsor, died itt Lower Ward, Windsor Castle, at the age of nearly years. -1 The estimated deliveries of tea in London last were 1,061,747 pounds which, compared with the turn for the previous week, shows a decrease r1 94,459 pounds. q It is reported that the War Department has decided to adopt the plan of Mr. Schneider for altering the E, field rifle into a breech-loader, and that 60,00u rifle, r5 at once be converted upon this plan. Signora Galetti and Signora Lotti are creating an h mense sensation in Milan by their extraordinary v<y'T j power. Lotti is of hnmbte origin, her mother h?'' i' been the sweeper of the theatre in Mantua. A rush basket-maker, named Cooke, living at 1- mingham, hM committed suicide by cutting Ids thr 'â– - The recent failure of Messrs. Attwood's bank, in 1I't.< Cooke had deposited savings, is the alleged cause oi 'f:: self-murder. The Salut Public of Lyons, publishes a despatch frs3 Romans, where M. Mathieu (de la Drome) resided, j-. nouncmg the death ot that gentlennn, on rrulay ing. His last words wereâ€”" Posterity will do justice- my labours." '"he Municipal Council of Berne has conside- it clearly proved that Demme, the Swiss doctor, nt; committed suicide at Geneva, stole a diamond ring f: Mrs. Hatchard, an English lady, and has taken sttps restore the property. The planet Uranus, which was discovered i: Herschel on the 13th of March, 1781, completed first revolution round the sun on Monday; that is v say in 84 years and seven hours it came back to tL: position in the heaven in which it was first seen. The Morning Herald says the Government has un; consideration certain proposals in reference to the pt trade, the adoption of which would place our home i; dllstry on a fair footing with that of foreign conipeti:.3 without in any way compromising the interest of consumer. An earth slip took place in Verdon-street, Pitsm:, on Saturday. A considerable excavation had bit, made for the purpose of working a band of coal, al whilst a group of children were playing in the hole, tt, earth slipped and covered up three of them. The; were subsequently disinterred, only one being seriouiii injured. NORTH WILTS ELECTION.â€”The election of a repress:, tative for North Wilts, in room of Mr. Sotlierm L:, court, resigned, took place on Monday. Lord C. Br:s (Liberal) and Ifr. Fowler (Conservative) were propyl The show of hands was in favour of the former, lld, Mr. Fowler did not demand a poll, Lord Bruce was de- clared elected. A measure for establishing a monthly steam line:, China has been approved by the Washington Longrtss. San Francisco is to be the port of departure, and the vessels on their route to China will touch at Honolu!1; and also at some port in Japan. The subsidy per arnica is not to exceed 500,000 dollars, which at the present n- lue of the American currency will be equal onlrt) Â£ 50,000. At Rotberham, on Sunday, a brutal fellow named Hartley, turned out a woman named Smith, who with her husband lodged at his house. She attempted to re-enter the house, but hearing him threatening within, walked away. He threw a poker after her, striking he: on the head and injuring her so severely, that she ii not expected to recover. Hartley was apprehended. Official information has been received at Wonlmo! to the effect that the 300-pounder gun intended ior:" Scorpion, together with the entire cargo of the n' Balaclava, lost on the Wexford coast, have been lasai in safety, but that the ship is a total wreck. Thee -â– manuer and crew have returned to Woolwich. TM have lost a portion of their personal effects, which KU be made good by the War Department. Eight convicts arrived at Castle Garden from EngJan1 on board the ship Plymouth Rock. Their names :,r: Wm. Taylor, John Fischer, Martin Davy, Tb"n: Tally, Thomas M'Carty, James Banks, Wm. Parker. I Jane Lee. It appears that they had been found gin." of felonies, had received sentences of three to iV- years imprisonment, and served out a part of their teri-, when, by the aid of the Prison Association, they we released, and sent to this country. It is expected ttr; will be returned to England.â€”New York papers, Tim IrLITL\ The arrangements for the training 1. the militia of Great Britain are now nearly coupkM for ISGiJ. Each regiment assembles at its county h<-y q Ilarters on the day specified in the list. 27 days' training, with seven days' preliminary drill i recruits in each case. 1st Cheshire, April iotli; Cheshire, May 1st; Cumberland, May 1st; Denbiga Hiiles, May 8th Flint Rifles, May 1st; 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, (jth, and 7th Lancashire, and Lancashire Ar. tillery, May, 1st; Merioneth Rifles, Iav Jot; West. morelaud Light Infantry, May 1st. Among other signs of progress in the rising Ttalja Kingdom may be noticed the appointment of a natiol? register for shipping, founded doubtless on the mode], of the English and French Lloyd's, and equally earei in their classification, with some improvements sug- gested by experience. This Registro Italiano" alreliv numbers several hundreds of classed vessels, and observe an American barque, the Comet, of 5_00 tors register, first-class, after having been repaired ia pool. The vessel is christened Antonietta, and beW? to Chevalier Giovanni Batia Piaggio, one of the most t.- terprising shipowners, in Genoa. This is the firs' c stance of a pitch pine vessel being made first-class. JUDGMENT IN THE COLENSO CASE.â€”The Judlc,' Committee of the Privy Council met on Monday when the Lord Chancellor delivered judgment in tti Colenso caee. After minutely recapitulating the ï¿¼ cumstances which led the Bishop of Cape Town to ,ÃŹÃ¨ pose the Bish"p of Natal from his office and de[)? him of his see, the Lord Chanccllor said that M' question can only be decided by the Sovereign, as h?' of the Established Church and depository of ultioa appellate jurisdiction, their lordships will humbly rellr to her Majesty their judgment and opinion that & proceedings taken by the Bishop of C:tpe of Town, the judgment or sentence pronounced by him aga"- the Bishop of Natal, are iiiill and void in law. STRANGE FP.AUDâ€”At the Mayo assizes, Dr.Bamv_i a graduate at the Dublin University, and an )LD.. rÂ¿. I gistrar of births and deaths to the Castle bar !?r-!Jw Union, pleaded guilty to a charge of extraordinary tPlldi In order to increase his fees, it appear that he en eI inthere?teranumber of births and deaths th'.t? never tt?cti place. The Crown did not press for pur- ment. but aitowed Dr. Barrett to go out on h.s own c.gnisances.for the following reasons :â€” It WM tirft offence of the kind in !r?u)d; he had not m.? ?; fd-e entry of any actual birth or death; he w., married man with several chiidreu depending on htmIj support; he had lost his situations, and had been prison for six months." Judge Christum, withoiu 3!' sumin" the responsibility of this lenient course, gi"; his saction. He thought the Crown had exereled wise discretion. TIIE "DAY OF REST."â€”This new penny mtg.,izine it is ,aid, create a great sensation. Consisting ot. < pages same size, paper, and type as All tbe Kound it will have in addition a handsome ithMtr. to the leading tale, and when necessary d?g''?'? it!u?rations to elucidate scietitifle,,it,tl I il'ill ..b I 1 h hal' amongst its contri b utors several gentlemen wtM? written for the Saturday l?eN,i,w, 131-,1 -%v The Quarterty. Spaetator, Cornhill, Temple Bar, r day at Home, Leisure Hour, the I!!ustrated L? News, and the Hlustrated Times. These wnt? well versed in the way of rendering science agr? and fiction bcneficiaL In addition to this, as a f? feature, the editor, Mr. Hain Friswei), is to g"'??? "The Whi-pering GaUery," a gossip with his r"Je'b and a report of all that is most new and in er ?t, science, literature, art, and society. Under such circll. stances, we need not say that the magazine will M able from the first page to the bst, nor that the â– will preserve and prize it when read. 1 he lei Â» of the "Day of Rest" is spoken most I.;ghly of, and e'e" the absorbing title of The Hidden Sin it ii W,:tl, by an autkor well known as a poet 0n the leading crltl,13? journal.
NORTH WALES SPRING ASSIZES. DENBIGHSIRE. The Judge arrived at Ruthin on Friday afternoon, 17th instant, and proceeded to the County Hall, where the commission of assize was formally opened. His Lordship afterwards attended Divine Service at St. Peter's Church, accompanied by the high sheriff (J. Lloyd Wynne, Esq., Coed coch), and J. Parry Jones, Esq., under-sheriff. The assize sermon was preached by the Rev. R. H. Jackson, the sheriffs chaplain. SATURDAY. tl The court was opened this morning at Ili.W, tile Judge being escorted from his lodgings to the hall by a retiuue of javelin men. The following gentlemen were sworn on THE GR\ND JURY. Sir Watkin Williams Wynn. Bart., M.P., foreman Thomas Hughes, Esq Ystrad Hull Townshcml Mainwaring, Esq., 1I.P. Col. Tottenham B. 0. Trevor Griffith, Esq. Simon Yorke, Esq. Col. Maddocks, Glanywera H. Bertie Wynn. Esq. Llewelyn Faulkner Lloyd, Esq. Rowland Jones Venables, Esq. E H. Griffith. Esq., PlasnewycM John Price. Esq.. Uanrhaiaar HaU R. Wynne Price, Esq., ditto James Maurice, Esq., Ruthin Michael Humble, Esq. R. 0. Moutsdale, Esq., Llanrwst Col. R. Brooke H R Sandbach, Esq. Ignatius Williams. Esq. R George Johnson, Esq. Henry Potts, Esq. Whitehall Dod, Esq. S. P. Hope. Esq Captain Rumley Charles Godfrey The Clerk of Arraigns having read her Majesty's Proclamation against vice and immorality, and for the encouragement of virtue, His LORDSHIP delivered his charge to the Grand Inquest. He commenced his observations by expres sing a hope that the few minutes delay' in opening the court had not inconvenienced the gentlemen in atten- dance. It had been done in order to have the assistance of those residing at a distant part of the county, and who had not the advantages of railway communication. He did not think that any body of men were more useful in the administration of public justice than on a grand jury. Without juries (grand and petty) there would be a danger for law, and law only, to be administered, but with the union of judge and juries the administration of justice according to law was secured. His Lordship then alluded to the cases in the calendar. There were two cases of arsonâ€”a crime of very serious complexion, and which was prevalent almost in every county in the circuit. He had in every case he had met with, whe- ther the fire was communicated by man or woman, inflicted a Tery long period of penal servitude in order if possible to discourage this class of offenders. In his opinion there ought to be some severer and more effec- tual mode of punishment in the case of arson than is at present inflicted. What that mode should be, it was for them to judgeâ€”but he would throw out a suggestion, namelyâ€”that the offender should at first be severely punished for a short time, and then sent to some new distant settlement. There was a case of great gravity to come before tticm-zi case of murder. If it was a real case of murder, it ought to be gravely probed, but of course without hesitation. It was a case in which a careful preliminary enquiry was desirable. The judge was always anxious that justice should be done, and so were the petty jury. A man charged with murder stood in a perilous position. Sometimes a guilty man might escape, and an innocent man might be condemned -but it was a great security, nevertheless, for an ac- cused person to Lave his case investigated by a grand jury, previous to another investigation before a judge and petty juryâ€”and those who proposed the abolition of graudjuries were very short-sighted people indeed. A person of the name of Joseph Hughes was by the coroner's inquest indicted for the murder of William Kendrick. By the magistrates he had been committed on a charge of catting and wounding, but William Kendrick afterwards died from the effects of his wounds. The occurrence took place in the town of Wrexham. It seemed that Joseph Hughes went up to two young men (one of whom was the deceased) to ask where he could get lodgings, and it was represented that he be- haved himself in a very odd mannerâ€”not being, it was supposed, sober. One of them saidâ€”" You have had a civil answer to a civil question, why don't you behave yourself." In consequence of these words a slight scuffle ensued between prisoner and the deceased, in the course of which the prisoner drew out a knife and stabbed at the head of the deceased. He was attended by a medi- cal man, and it transpired that the knife had penetrated a portion of the brain congestion of the brain followed, and in a short time the unfortunate man W. Kendrick died. There would be no doubt that the prisoner had taken away the life of the deceased, and he was so far guilty of homicide. All homicides were ^rima facie murdersâ€”prima facie, therefore, Joseph Hughes mur- dered the deceased. But, then, there was a scuffle, and certain circumstances might reduce the crime of murder to manslaughter. What were those circumstances? Mere words would not reduce murder to manslaughter â€”however abusive were the words of deceased, it would not affect the case. But serious blows would. Suppos- ing the deceased struck the prisoner a serious blow, and the stab wits given in hot blooci. that would reduce the crime to manslaughter. Therefore he recommended the jury to pay most particular attention to what passed immediately before the fatal stroke was given. The first question wasâ€”whether there was a blow at all ? If there was a slight assault, provoked by the prisoner himself, then the homicide was murder; but if there was a serious blow and returned by the prisoner with a knife in hot blood, then it was manslaughter. His Lordship trusted they (grand jury) would be directed to a right conclusion. Owing to the Quarter Sessions hav- ing been held on Thursday, at which a good many pri- soners were disposed of, he was happy to say only six remained for trial at the Assizes, and the grand jury's occupation would be light, with the exception of the murder case. NO TRUE BILL Against Henry Birch, 2.3, for having, at Wrexham, on the 17th of August, 1864, feloniously killed and slayed one John Jones. AMON, William Mason, 21, and William Mawson, 21, were arraigted for having, at Llantvsilio, on the 10th of No- vember, lSCi4, felouiously set fire to a stack of hay, the property of Mr. Godfrey Parry. Both prisoners pleaded guilty. His LORDSHIP, in passing sentenceâ€”You have plead- ed guilty upon your own confession to the crime of arson. I have carefully perused the depositions, and it is quite plain that the result of any trial would be a conviction. This is a crime which must be stopped. I am sorry to inflict upon you so severe a sentence, but I have no discretion in your case. I have dealt in the same way in every instance of arson that has come under my notice throughout this circuit.â€”Sentenced to 7 years' penal servitude. Reuben Bolton, 20, and Thomas DlOtlop, 20, pleaded guilty to having, at Wrexham, on the 10th of January last, set fire to a stack of hay, the property of Mr. Robt. Jarvis. The prisoners handed over to the Judge a statement in writing, which his Lordship ordered to be read by the Clerk of the Court. The statement was to the following effectâ€”It is with deep feelings of regret that we have to address you in any way whatever, but what can we do, having been brought here under such circumstances. On the Kith of December we were turned out of the Wrexham Workhouse with nothing to cover our nakedness. \Ve suffered so much-from hunger, and our bodies were so benumbed with cold that we were driven to commit this crime. Whatever the damages amount to, we are willing to pay by working if we have the opportunity. We are sorry for our conduct; we know we must suffer for our wickedness, but we hope your Lordship will be as lenient with us as you can. His LORDSHIP said it was with very great pam he proceeded to pass sentence upon them but it was abso- lutely necessary that the unprotected farmers should be protected. Sentenced to seven years' penal servitude. t I NISI PItIlTS. ACTION FOR SLANDER. Elizabeth Jones Vaughan, aged 18, (by Jane Vaughan, her next friend), versus John Jones, farmer, Glanclwyd, Bodfari. Mr. Morgan Lloyd and Mr. Swetenham for the plain- tiff, and Mr. Melntyre and Mr. Ignatius Williams for defendant. Mr. Swetenham opened the pleadings and Mr. Lloyd stated the case. The plaintiff, on her oath, saidâ€”I am the daughter of Mr., Vaughan, Victoria Inn. Bodfari. Mr. and Mr., Williams, who keep the Blue Hand Inn, on the Mold and Denbigh road, are my grand parents. On the 22nd of J line last, I was living as a servant with them, at a salary of Â£ 5 a year, with my clothes. I know John Jones, the defendant. Ho is a middle-aged man. On the 22nd of June he came to the bar of the Blue Hand. I served him with a glass of gin, and as I was taking it to him, he took hold of me rather roughly by the arm, and said he had something to tell me, regarding myself. He wanted to tell it loudly, but I asked him to tell it quietjy, whatever it was. He then said to me in my ear, but loud enough for others to hearâ€”"You have lost your character for ever you have miscarried and thrown your shift into the wood." I cried and told my grandmother. My grandmother and six or seven other men were present when defendant uttered these words. In cross-examina'ion she said she had heard of a shift being found in the wood. William Williams, the grandfather, swore having heard the defendant speak the slander to his grand- daughter, that he had dismissed her from his service in consequence of the talk about her character in the neichbourhood since the night in question. Cross-examined-My wife is unable to walk about. She has bad limbs. She can walk with a stick in the house. Another witness (Thomas Asbury) was called, but he did not hear the slander uttered. He only heard Wm. Williams and his wife quarrelling about it with John Jones. Mr. Melntyre said that in the whole course of his expe- rience he never saw a more trumpery case. Six or seven persons were in the room, but only the girl and her grandfather had heard the words spoken and he maintained that they themselves had made the scandal public and not the defendant. John Jones, defendant, sworn, said-Recollect going to the Blue Hand on the 22nd of June last. I spoke in plaintiff's ear. I asked her to whom the old shift belonged. I never said you have lost your character, &c. Crosi-examined-I called with plaiutiff's mother that night, and told her that I had been charged at the Blue Hand with saying that her daughter had mis- carried. Margaret Jones-I went with my husband and John Jones, defendant, to the Blue Hand, on the 22nd of June. Did not see or hear John Jones say anything to plaintiff. Examinedâ€”Saw John Jones go cut of the room to speak to Mrs. Williams. I heard and saw plaintiff crying. Mr. Melntyre addressed the jury, and urged that whatever was said to plaintiff by defendant was said in a whisper. Margaret Jones, an independent witness, had rr -=- .1.- sworn that she heard notning uttereci onensiveiy w plaintiff. If the jury believed that the slander was spoken by defendant, but not loud enough to be heard by the company present, the defendent was entitled to their verdict. Had the grandfather heard the words, was it not natural that he should at once attack the de- fendant for so insnlting hi granddaughter? But he did nothing of the sort. Why, because he only knew of it, most probably, after the girl had cried and told her grandmother. He (the learned counsel) trusted thatjthe jury would clearly see that the action was one merely to obtain costs-that the discharge of the girl was only a sham to plead for special damages. He confidently hoped they would not encourage such trumpery actions, and that they would scout it out of court by their ver- dict. Mr. Morgan Lloyd made a humorous reply, remarking that his learned friend, in want of material for defence, was driven to attack the plaintiff's attorneyâ€”he had no defence whatever, -the burden of his song was "it is a trumps r/ action, brought to put money into the attorney's pocket." There could be no truth in saying the action was brought to obtain cost3, inasmuch as plaintiff had said all she required was for the defendant to say- "The words were false; and I am sorry I spoke them." But what were the real merits of the defence? It was maintained that the words were said in an undertone- in a whisperâ€”and they were made public by plaintiff herself. That logic, however, would not bear a common sense view. Had the defendant (being no doubt in some degree under the influence of liquor) said the words loudly, they might have passed off unnoticed, as a jocular remark of a drunken man; but the fact of his having said them in an undertone proved that he spoke earnestly, and meant what he was saying The whisper was more prejudicial to the girl than if the words were hallooed out in the streets of Denbigh. Only one wit- ness had been called for the defence, and she did not even corroborate the evidence of defendant, for she said she neither saw nor heard him speak to plaintiff. There was no pretence to deny defendant had not spoken to plaintiff-therefore her evidence did not help his case. In calling her, he was like the Irishman, who, being charged with beating another, said he could call a hun- dred people to prove they had not seen him do it. (Laughter.) Again defendant confessed having said "who is the owner of the old shift." That was sub- stantially the charge itself-it was very little milder and would the jury for a moment suppose that the words had been invented by the girl and her grand- parents ? It was not at all surprising the grandfather, an old man, did not instantly attack defendant, a strong middle-aged man, being "fresh" with drink, and just in the mood for fighting. He submitted the case for the plaintiff was abundantly proved. The JUDGE summed up, and directed the jury to satisfy themselves upon the following points:â€”1. Were the words spoken, as alleged, or any part of them, im- puting unchastity to plaintiff. 2. Were they spoken (this was the most material question) in the presence and hearing of any one tiesides the plaintiff (if not the case was not actionable.) 3. Was the plaintiff's dis- charge a real and honest discharge, or a discharge merely to ground this action. The jury retired for a short time and returned with a verdict for plaintiff. Damages, Â£ 5. The court was adjourned at 5 o'clock, MONDAY. The court was opened at 10 a.m. precisely, at which time a dense crowd of listeners had assembled, including a goodly number of ladies.